Abitur NRW Englisch 2021 · LK · Haupttermin · Weiterbildungskolleg (Kolleg)

Klausurteil A: Leseverstehen und Schreiben integriert

Klausurteil A

Ovo Adagha

The Plantation

This passage comes from the opening of the short story. At dawn, Namidi makes his way to his rubber tree plantation, which is located somewhere in the Niger Delta.

This place was an emblem of life to him – the high-pitched whistle of the birds; the cold

drizzle of early morning dew; the soft, earthy, muskiness of the air; the endless reams of

foliage and the rubber trees that glistened with sap. The plantation seemed to glow with a

curious mysteriousness which followed him about as he moved abstractedly, slashing at the

5 banners of plant-leaves that heaved across his path, his face a picture of dark brooding.

There followed a small moment of prickling silence, when it seemed as if the murmur of the

plantation was suspended in a state of waiting; as though giving audience to some novelty

event. Namidi’s nostrils pricked up an odd, sickly smell that set his stomach on edge as he

moved about; and with it floated an alien, trickling sound. He paused in mid-stride and cocked

10 his ears at the trees. He stood still for a long time, listening, watching and sniffing, until,

perhaps touched by an uncertain impulse, he looked behind a thicket a few feet away.

If the trees had started talking to him he would not have been more surprised. A stream of

fluid burst forth from the ground and splashed all around in a wayward arc. It flowed across

the adjoining greenery, which seemed to shrink away from the onslaught. He watched as a

15 puddle of fluid gathered around him and washed across the plantation. With his senses

invaded by the strong stench, he realized it was petrol.

Once, many years ago, some men from the city in khaki uniforms had come to the village

with long pipes and heavy trucks. Their spectacle had held the attention of the village people

for many days. They had dug across the village grounds, through the plantation and the nearby

20 forests; buried the pipes and then left. A pipe must have broken, was the first thoughts that

came to Namidi; he must ask the village head to do something about it.

But such noble thought soon evaporated as he turned the matter over in his mind. Yes, it was

surely petrol, but of what benefit would this be to him? There was an opportunity here, if

only the meddling of the villagers would let him. Then a small grin lit up his face. Yes, he

25 knew what to do.

He filled the rubber gourd with some petrol and then started towards the village. When he

emerged from the plantation the early morning sun was rising confidently in the skies. […]

Namidi moved as quickly as he could, his heart full of intent. Some riches are too hard won,

he thought to himself, too long waited for to be shared, especially in this village where no

30 man lacked the capacity for greed and treachery. Of what use is it to come upon a herd of

bush meat, if it will only serve the main course of a public feast? For long he had wandered

and waited in the plantation for a chance to redeem himself from the poverty that had beset

his adult life. Now it was within his grasp to settle it. He would not share his discovery with

anyone, he decided. […]

35 ‘What is it?’ his wife, Mama Efe, enquired as she emerged from the hut. She was a thin,

shrivelled woman with a hardened look about her. Years and years of toiling in the sun had

drawn the skin taut over her cheek-bones so that time and suffering seemed etched on her

features.

‘What’s that smell you brought home today?’ she asked, with a wary, suspicious frown on

40 her face.

Namidi was gazing at his hut; at the lines of rotten bamboo that stuck out of its window panes.

It seemed like the thatched roof and clay-red walls were cowering before him and the smell

of new money. He turned around with a perspiring face and told her about his findings.

‘We must go there now before the busybodies get wind of it,’ he added, trying to infect her

45 with a sense of urgency.

‘What if a fire starts, eh?’ she queried, worriedly. In her mind, there appeared a flash of

blurred images writhing inside a great flame; of grotesque-looking figures being planted in

the ground; and of grey-clothed people standing around the fresh mounds of soil, with a

charged, funereal quality.

50 Looking at her, at the doubt and anxiety that suddenly clouded her face, Namidi experienced a

brief pang of foreboding; but he tossed the thought away quickly from his mind, without

repining, and said:

‘It won’t, I am the only one who knows.’ His eyebrows arched menacingly, admonishing her

to say no more.

55 She asked no further questions, but she thought within herself: this thing is a ghoulish business

and will come to no good.

Namidi, his wife and three children carved an odd, almost patriarchal procession as they left

the house with huge, empty cans. Namidi led the line, towering and frowning, as he strode

determinedly down the bush path; his children followed, awe-struck and excited by the scent

60 of adventure, picking their way bare-footed over the rough path; his wife completed the

moving line of ancient slave-rite figures, tagging along on hardened feet, her face brooding

and disturbed. Their advance took them to where they were greeted by an ensemble of

close-knit trees that stretched and heaved into the track, forming an intimidating profusion

of branches, fronds and creepers. The air was stale and thick with damp sweat. Yet Namidi

65 retained all the doggedness that was upon him since the time he made the discovery. It was

the road that would lead them to riches, he thought cheekily to himself. And as his wife and

children trudged mechanically behind him, his mind was closed to all else except his

destination.

In the stroking brightness of the sun, an owl in full glide flapped its brown-streaked wings,

70 turned its head and then sounded a doleful note as it flew past the trudging party below.

Annotation:

26 rubber gourd – here: a container made from the hard dry skin of a gourd fruit (Zierkürbis)

1. Outline what life is like in the Niger Delta and under which conditions Namidi lives. (Comprehension) [12 Punkte]

Klausurteil A: Leseverstehen und Schreiben integriert

Klausurteil A

Ovo Adagha

The Plantation

This passage comes from the opening of the short story. At dawn, Namidi makes his way to his rubber tree plantation, which is located somewhere in the Niger Delta.

This place was an emblem of life to him – the high-pitched whistle of the birds; the cold

drizzle of early morning dew; the soft, earthy, muskiness of the air; the endless reams of

foliage and the rubber trees that glistened with sap. The plantation seemed to glow with a

curious mysteriousness which followed him about as he moved abstractedly, slashing at the

5 banners of plant-leaves that heaved across his path, his face a picture of dark brooding.

There followed a small moment of prickling silence, when it seemed as if the murmur of the

plantation was suspended in a state of waiting; as though giving audience to some novelty

event. Namidi’s nostrils pricked up an odd, sickly smell that set his stomach on edge as he

moved about; and with it floated an alien, trickling sound. He paused in mid-stride and cocked

10 his ears at the trees. He stood still for a long time, listening, watching and sniffing, until,

perhaps touched by an uncertain impulse, he looked behind a thicket a few feet away.

If the trees had started talking to him he would not have been more surprised. A stream of

fluid burst forth from the ground and splashed all around in a wayward arc. It flowed across

the adjoining greenery, which seemed to shrink away from the onslaught. He watched as a

15 puddle of fluid gathered around him and washed across the plantation. With his senses

invaded by the strong stench, he realized it was petrol.

Once, many years ago, some men from the city in khaki uniforms had come to the village

with long pipes and heavy trucks. Their spectacle had held the attention of the village people

for many days. They had dug across the village grounds, through the plantation and the nearby

20 forests; buried the pipes and then left. A pipe must have broken, was the first thoughts that

came to Namidi; he must ask the village head to do something about it.

But such noble thought soon evaporated as he turned the matter over in his mind. Yes, it was

surely petrol, but of what benefit would this be to him? There was an opportunity here, if

only the meddling of the villagers would let him. Then a small grin lit up his face. Yes, he

25 knew what to do.

He filled the rubber gourd with some petrol and then started towards the village. When he

emerged from the plantation the early morning sun was rising confidently in the skies. […]

Namidi moved as quickly as he could, his heart full of intent. Some riches are too hard won,

he thought to himself, too long waited for to be shared, especially in this village where no

30 man lacked the capacity for greed and treachery. Of what use is it to come upon a herd of

bush meat, if it will only serve the main course of a public feast? For long he had wandered

and waited in the plantation for a chance to redeem himself from the poverty that had beset

his adult life. Now it was within his grasp to settle it. He would not share his discovery with

anyone, he decided. […]

35 ‘What is it?’ his wife, Mama Efe, enquired as she emerged from the hut. She was a thin,

shrivelled woman with a hardened look about her. Years and years of toiling in the sun had

drawn the skin taut over her cheek-bones so that time and suffering seemed etched on her

features.

‘What’s that smell you brought home today?’ she asked, with a wary, suspicious frown on

40 her face.

Namidi was gazing at his hut; at the lines of rotten bamboo that stuck out of its window panes.

It seemed like the thatched roof and clay-red walls were cowering before him and the smell

of new money. He turned around with a perspiring face and told her about his findings.

‘We must go there now before the busybodies get wind of it,’ he added, trying to infect her

45 with a sense of urgency.

‘What if a fire starts, eh?’ she queried, worriedly. In her mind, there appeared a flash of

blurred images writhing inside a great flame; of grotesque-looking figures being planted in

the ground; and of grey-clothed people standing around the fresh mounds of soil, with a

charged, funereal quality.

50 Looking at her, at the doubt and anxiety that suddenly clouded her face, Namidi experienced a

brief pang of foreboding; but he tossed the thought away quickly from his mind, without

repining, and said:

‘It won’t, I am the only one who knows.’ His eyebrows arched menacingly, admonishing her

to say no more.

55 She asked no further questions, but she thought within herself: this thing is a ghoulish business

and will come to no good.

Namidi, his wife and three children carved an odd, almost patriarchal procession as they left

the house with huge, empty cans. Namidi led the line, towering and frowning, as he strode

determinedly down the bush path; his children followed, awe-struck and excited by the scent

60 of adventure, picking their way bare-footed over the rough path; his wife completed the

moving line of ancient slave-rite figures, tagging along on hardened feet, her face brooding

and disturbed. Their advance took them to where they were greeted by an ensemble of

close-knit trees that stretched and heaved into the track, forming an intimidating profusion

of branches, fronds and creepers. The air was stale and thick with damp sweat. Yet Namidi

65 retained all the doggedness that was upon him since the time he made the discovery. It was

the road that would lead them to riches, he thought cheekily to himself. And as his wife and

children trudged mechanically behind him, his mind was closed to all else except his

destination.

In the stroking brightness of the sun, an owl in full glide flapped its brown-streaked wings,

70 turned its head and then sounded a doleful note as it flew past the trudging party below.

Annotation:

26 rubber gourd – here: a container made from the hard dry skin of a gourd fruit (Zierkürbis)

2. Analyse the way in which Namidi's state of mind is portrayed in the extract, concentrating on the narrative perspective and the use of language. (Analysis) [16 Punkte]

Klausurteil A: Leseverstehen und Schreiben integriert

Klausurteil A

Ovo Adagha

The Plantation

This passage comes from the opening of the short story. At dawn, Namidi makes his way to his rubber tree plantation, which is located somewhere in the Niger Delta.

This place was an emblem of life to him – the high-pitched whistle of the birds; the cold

drizzle of early morning dew; the soft, earthy, muskiness of the air; the endless reams of

foliage and the rubber trees that glistened with sap. The plantation seemed to glow with a

curious mysteriousness which followed him about as he moved abstractedly, slashing at the

5 banners of plant-leaves that heaved across his path, his face a picture of dark brooding.

There followed a small moment of prickling silence, when it seemed as if the murmur of the

plantation was suspended in a state of waiting; as though giving audience to some novelty

event. Namidi’s nostrils pricked up an odd, sickly smell that set his stomach on edge as he

moved about; and with it floated an alien, trickling sound. He paused in mid-stride and cocked

10 his ears at the trees. He stood still for a long time, listening, watching and sniffing, until,

perhaps touched by an uncertain impulse, he looked behind a thicket a few feet away.

If the trees had started talking to him he would not have been more surprised. A stream of

fluid burst forth from the ground and splashed all around in a wayward arc. It flowed across

the adjoining greenery, which seemed to shrink away from the onslaught. He watched as a

15 puddle of fluid gathered around him and washed across the plantation. With his senses

invaded by the strong stench, he realized it was petrol.

Once, many years ago, some men from the city in khaki uniforms had come to the village

with long pipes and heavy trucks. Their spectacle had held the attention of the village people

for many days. They had dug across the village grounds, through the plantation and the nearby

20 forests; buried the pipes and then left. A pipe must have broken, was the first thoughts that

came to Namidi; he must ask the village head to do something about it.

But such noble thought soon evaporated as he turned the matter over in his mind. Yes, it was

surely petrol, but of what benefit would this be to him? There was an opportunity here, if

only the meddling of the villagers would let him. Then a small grin lit up his face. Yes, he

25 knew what to do.

He filled the rubber gourd with some petrol and then started towards the village. When he

emerged from the plantation the early morning sun was rising confidently in the skies. […]

Namidi moved as quickly as he could, his heart full of intent. Some riches are too hard won,

he thought to himself, too long waited for to be shared, especially in this village where no

30 man lacked the capacity for greed and treachery. Of what use is it to come upon a herd of

bush meat, if it will only serve the main course of a public feast? For long he had wandered

and waited in the plantation for a chance to redeem himself from the poverty that had beset

his adult life. Now it was within his grasp to settle it. He would not share his discovery with

anyone, he decided. […]

35 ‘What is it?’ his wife, Mama Efe, enquired as she emerged from the hut. She was a thin,

shrivelled woman with a hardened look about her. Years and years of toiling in the sun had

drawn the skin taut over her cheek-bones so that time and suffering seemed etched on her

features.

‘What’s that smell you brought home today?’ she asked, with a wary, suspicious frown on

40 her face.

Namidi was gazing at his hut; at the lines of rotten bamboo that stuck out of its window panes.

It seemed like the thatched roof and clay-red walls were cowering before him and the smell

of new money. He turned around with a perspiring face and told her about his findings.

‘We must go there now before the busybodies get wind of it,’ he added, trying to infect her

45 with a sense of urgency.

‘What if a fire starts, eh?’ she queried, worriedly. In her mind, there appeared a flash of

blurred images writhing inside a great flame; of grotesque-looking figures being planted in

the ground; and of grey-clothed people standing around the fresh mounds of soil, with a

charged, funereal quality.

50 Looking at her, at the doubt and anxiety that suddenly clouded her face, Namidi experienced a

brief pang of foreboding; but he tossed the thought away quickly from his mind, without

repining, and said:

‘It won’t, I am the only one who knows.’ His eyebrows arched menacingly, admonishing her

to say no more.

55 She asked no further questions, but she thought within herself: this thing is a ghoulish business

and will come to no good.

Namidi, his wife and three children carved an odd, almost patriarchal procession as they left

the house with huge, empty cans. Namidi led the line, towering and frowning, as he strode

determinedly down the bush path; his children followed, awe-struck and excited by the scent

60 of adventure, picking their way bare-footed over the rough path; his wife completed the

moving line of ancient slave-rite figures, tagging along on hardened feet, her face brooding

and disturbed. Their advance took them to where they were greeted by an ensemble of

close-knit trees that stretched and heaved into the track, forming an intimidating profusion

of branches, fronds and creepers. The air was stale and thick with damp sweat. Yet Namidi

65 retained all the doggedness that was upon him since the time he made the discovery. It was

the road that would lead them to riches, he thought cheekily to himself. And as his wife and

children trudged mechanically behind him, his mind was closed to all else except his

destination.

In the stroking brightness of the sun, an owl in full glide flapped its brown-streaked wings,

70 turned its head and then sounded a doleful note as it flew past the trudging party below.

Annotation:

26 rubber gourd – here: a container made from the hard dry skin of a gourd fruit (Zierkürbis)

3. Choose one of the following tasks:

3.1 The editorial board of the daily broadsheet Punch Nigeria stated in an article that “[f]or a country that is so richly blessed, Nigeria’s poverty narrative is an embarrassment to both the citizens and outsiders”. Discuss this statement with regard to the social realities in Nigeria and to economic, ecological and political aspects of globalisation. (Evaluation: comment) [14 Punkte]

Klausurteil A: Leseverstehen und Schreiben integriert

Klausurteil A

Ovo Adagha

The Plantation

This passage comes from the opening of the short story. At dawn, Namidi makes his way to his rubber tree plantation, which is located somewhere in the Niger Delta.

This place was an emblem of life to him – the high-pitched whistle of the birds; the cold

drizzle of early morning dew; the soft, earthy, muskiness of the air; the endless reams of

foliage and the rubber trees that glistened with sap. The plantation seemed to glow with a

curious mysteriousness which followed him about as he moved abstractedly, slashing at the

5 banners of plant-leaves that heaved across his path, his face a picture of dark brooding.

There followed a small moment of prickling silence, when it seemed as if the murmur of the

plantation was suspended in a state of waiting; as though giving audience to some novelty

event. Namidi’s nostrils pricked up an odd, sickly smell that set his stomach on edge as he

moved about; and with it floated an alien, trickling sound. He paused in mid-stride and cocked

10 his ears at the trees. He stood still for a long time, listening, watching and sniffing, until,

perhaps touched by an uncertain impulse, he looked behind a thicket a few feet away.

If the trees had started talking to him he would not have been more surprised. A stream of

fluid burst forth from the ground and splashed all around in a wayward arc. It flowed across

the adjoining greenery, which seemed to shrink away from the onslaught. He watched as a

15 puddle of fluid gathered around him and washed across the plantation. With his senses

invaded by the strong stench, he realized it was petrol.

Once, many years ago, some men from the city in khaki uniforms had come to the village

with long pipes and heavy trucks. Their spectacle had held the attention of the village people

for many days. They had dug across the village grounds, through the plantation and the nearby

20 forests; buried the pipes and then left. A pipe must have broken, was the first thoughts that

came to Namidi; he must ask the village head to do something about it.

But such noble thought soon evaporated as he turned the matter over in his mind. Yes, it was

surely petrol, but of what benefit would this be to him? There was an opportunity here, if

only the meddling of the villagers would let him. Then a small grin lit up his face. Yes, he

25 knew what to do.

He filled the rubber gourd with some petrol and then started towards the village. When he

emerged from the plantation the early morning sun was rising confidently in the skies. […]

Namidi moved as quickly as he could, his heart full of intent. Some riches are too hard won,

he thought to himself, too long waited for to be shared, especially in this village where no

30 man lacked the capacity for greed and treachery. Of what use is it to come upon a herd of

bush meat, if it will only serve the main course of a public feast? For long he had wandered

and waited in the plantation for a chance to redeem himself from the poverty that had beset

his adult life. Now it was within his grasp to settle it. He would not share his discovery with

anyone, he decided. […]

35 ‘What is it?’ his wife, Mama Efe, enquired as she emerged from the hut. She was a thin,

shrivelled woman with a hardened look about her. Years and years of toiling in the sun had

drawn the skin taut over her cheek-bones so that time and suffering seemed etched on her

features.

‘What’s that smell you brought home today?’ she asked, with a wary, suspicious frown on

40 her face.

Namidi was gazing at his hut; at the lines of rotten bamboo that stuck out of its window panes.

It seemed like the thatched roof and clay-red walls were cowering before him and the smell

of new money. He turned around with a perspiring face and told her about his findings.

‘We must go there now before the busybodies get wind of it,’ he added, trying to infect her

45 with a sense of urgency.

‘What if a fire starts, eh?’ she queried, worriedly. In her mind, there appeared a flash of

blurred images writhing inside a great flame; of grotesque-looking figures being planted in

the ground; and of grey-clothed people standing around the fresh mounds of soil, with a

charged, funereal quality.

50 Looking at her, at the doubt and anxiety that suddenly clouded her face, Namidi experienced a

brief pang of foreboding; but he tossed the thought away quickly from his mind, without

repining, and said:

‘It won’t, I am the only one who knows.’ His eyebrows arched menacingly, admonishing her

to say no more.

55 She asked no further questions, but she thought within herself: this thing is a ghoulish business

and will come to no good.

Namidi, his wife and three children carved an odd, almost patriarchal procession as they left

the house with huge, empty cans. Namidi led the line, towering and frowning, as he strode

determinedly down the bush path; his children followed, awe-struck and excited by the scent

60 of adventure, picking their way bare-footed over the rough path; his wife completed the

moving line of ancient slave-rite figures, tagging along on hardened feet, her face brooding

and disturbed. Their advance took them to where they were greeted by an ensemble of

close-knit trees that stretched and heaved into the track, forming an intimidating profusion

of branches, fronds and creepers. The air was stale and thick with damp sweat. Yet Namidi

65 retained all the doggedness that was upon him since the time he made the discovery. It was

the road that would lead them to riches, he thought cheekily to himself. And as his wife and

children trudged mechanically behind him, his mind was closed to all else except his

destination.

In the stroking brightness of the sun, an owl in full glide flapped its brown-streaked wings,

70 turned its head and then sounded a doleful note as it flew past the trudging party below.

Annotation:

26 rubber gourd – here: a container made from the hard dry skin of a gourd fruit (Zierkürbis)

3. Select one of the tasks below:

3.2 Namidi’s wife Efe believes that the “thing is a ghoulish business and will come to no good” (ll. 55 – 56). Back at home, she thinks about the discovery and what it could mean for her family. Write her interior monologue. (Evaluation: re-creation of text) [14 Punkte]

Klausurteil A

Ovo Adagha

The Plantation

This passage comes from the opening of the short story. At dawn, Namidi makes his way to his rubber tree plantation, which is located somewhere in the Niger Delta.

This place was an emblem of life to him – the high-pitched whistle of the birds; the cold

drizzle of early morning dew; the soft, earthy, muskiness of the air; the endless reams of

foliage and the rubber trees that glistened with sap. The plantation seemed to glow with a

curious mysteriousness which followed him about as he moved abstractedly, slashing at the

5 banners of plant-leaves that heaved across his path, his face a picture of dark brooding.

There followed a small moment of prickling silence, when it seemed as if the murmur of the

plantation was suspended in a state of waiting; as though giving audience to some novelty

event. Namidi’s nostrils pricked up an odd, sickly smell that set his stomach on edge as he

moved about; and with it floated an alien, trickling sound. He paused in mid-stride and cocked

10 his ears at the trees. He stood still for a long time, listening, watching and sniffing, until,

perhaps touched by an uncertain impulse, he looked behind a thicket a few feet away.

If the trees had started talking to him he would not have been more surprised. A stream of

fluid burst forth from the ground and splashed all around in a wayward arc. It flowed across

the adjoining greenery, which seemed to shrink away from the onslaught. He watched as a

15 puddle of fluid gathered around him and washed across the plantation. With his senses

invaded by the strong stench, he realized it was petrol.

Once, many years ago, some men from the city in khaki uniforms had come to the village

with long pipes and heavy trucks. Their spectacle had held the attention of the village people

for many days. They had dug across the village grounds, through the plantation and the nearby

20 forests; buried the pipes and then left. A pipe must have broken, was the first thoughts that

came to Namidi; he must ask the village head to do something about it.

But such noble thought soon evaporated as he turned the matter over in his mind. Yes, it was

surely petrol, but of what benefit would this be to him? There was an opportunity here, if

only the meddling of the villagers would let him. Then a small grin lit up his face. Yes, he

25 knew what to do.

He filled the rubber gourd with some petrol and then started towards the village. When he

emerged from the plantation the early morning sun was rising confidently in the skies. […]

Namidi moved as quickly as he could, his heart full of intent. Some riches are too hard won,

he thought to himself, too long waited for to be shared, especially in this village where no

30 man lacked the capacity for greed and treachery. Of what use is it to come upon a herd of

bush meat, if it will only serve the main course of a public feast? For long he had wandered

and waited in the plantation for a chance to redeem himself from the poverty that had beset

his adult life. Now it was within his grasp to settle it. He would not share his discovery with

anyone, he decided. […]

35 ‘What is it?’ his wife, Mama Efe, enquired as she emerged from the hut. She was a thin,

shrivelled woman with a hardened look about her. Years and years of toiling in the sun had

drawn the skin taut over her cheek-bones so that time and suffering seemed etched on her

features.

‘What’s that smell you brought home today?’ she asked, with a wary, suspicious frown on

40 her face.

Namidi was gazing at his hut; at the lines of rotten bamboo that stuck out of its window panes.

It seemed like the thatched roof and clay-red walls were cowering before him and the smell

of new money. He turned around with a perspiring face and told her about his findings.

‘We must go there now before the busybodies get wind of it,’ he added, trying to infect her

45 with a sense of urgency.

‘What if a fire starts, eh?’ she queried, worriedly. In her mind, there appeared a flash of

blurred images writhing inside a great flame; of grotesque-looking figures being planted in

the ground; and of grey-clothed people standing around the fresh mounds of soil, with a

charged, funereal quality.

50 Looking at her, at the doubt and anxiety that suddenly clouded her face, Namidi experienced a

brief pang of foreboding; but he tossed the thought away quickly from his mind, without

repining, and said:

‘It won’t, I am the only one who knows.’ His eyebrows arched menacingly, admonishing her

to say no more.

55 She asked no further questions, but she thought within herself: this thing is a ghoulish business

and will come to no good.

Namidi, his wife and three children carved an odd, almost patriarchal procession as they left

the house with huge, empty cans. Namidi led the line, towering and frowning, as he strode

determinedly down the bush path; his children followed, awe-struck and excited by the scent

60 of adventure, picking their way bare-footed over the rough path; his wife completed the

moving line of ancient slave-rite figures, tagging along on hardened feet, her face brooding

and disturbed. Their advance took them to where they were greeted by an ensemble of

close-knit trees that stretched and heaved into the track, forming an intimidating profusion

of branches, fronds and creepers. The air was stale and thick with damp sweat. Yet Namidi

65 retained all the doggedness that was upon him since the time he made the discovery. It was

the road that would lead them to riches, he thought cheekily to himself. And as his wife and

children trudged mechanically behind him, his mind was closed to all else except his

destination.

In the stroking brightness of the sun, an owl in full glide flapped its brown-streaked wings,

70 turned its head and then sounded a doleful note as it flew past the trudging party below.

Annotation:

26 rubber gourd – here: a container made from the hard dry skin of a gourd fruit (Zierkürbis)

Klausurteil B: Sprachmittlung isoliert

4. You are involved in an international project dealing with alternative energies. All participants are expected to add a contribution to the project's website. You have decided to write about wind power in Germany.

Using the dpa-article as your basis, write an online article in which you outline the present dispute about wind power use in Germany.

(Mediation)

[18 Punkte]

dpa: Die Windkraftkrise: Wut bei Bürgern, Alarm in der Branche

1 Eigentlich ist es eine Idylle. Ein helles, freundliches Haus in einem kleinen Dorf, ein großer Garten mit freiem Blick auf die Felder. Wenn da nicht die Windräder wären. „Von den Dingern gehen viele gesundheitliche Gefahren aus – abgesehen davon, dass sie die Landschaft verschandeln“, schimpft Stefan Hellert. „Die machen uns den Frieden und die Ruhe kaputt. Und

5 die Gesundheit“, sagt seine Frau Katrin Stoll-Hellert.

„Die“ – das ist die Windbranche mit einem aus Sicht der Gegner hoch subventionierten und rentablen Geschäft. Das ist die Politik, die den Ausbau der Windkraft vorantreibe, koste es, was es wolle. Stefan Hellert (45) ist Sprecher einer Bürgerinitiative in Carzig, einem Ortsteil der Gemeinde Fichtenhof im Brandenburger Landkreis Märkisch-Oderland. Mehr als 1000

10 solcher Initiativen gibt es bundesweit.

Als die Hellerts vor drei Jahren nach Carzig zogen, standen in der Nähe einige kleinere Windräder, 166 Meter hoch, die nächsten sind 800 Meter entfernt von ihrem Haus. Doch inzwischen sind einige bereits ersetzt worden – gegen Anlagen mit einer Höhe von 229 Metern. Und es seien bereits Baugenehmigungen beantragt für neue Anlagen, 250 Meter hoch, sagt

15 Hellert. „Unsere Grundstücke werden von Windrädern entwertet, das ist eine schleichende Enteignung. Landeigentümer bekommen horrende Pachten. Uns entschädigt kein Mensch“, sagt Katrin Stoll-Hellert.

Knapp 85 Kilometer entfernt von Carzig steht Rainer Ebeling auf einem Feld vor Windrädern. Der 58-Jährige ist Sprecher der Bürgerinitiative in Crussow, einem Ortsteil von Angermünde

20 in der Uckermark. „Angermünde ist schon mit Windkraftanlagen umzingelt, auf einer Fläche von 160 Hektar im Umkreis von fünf Kilometern. Und nun sollen noch mal 200 Hektar draufgepackt werden.“

Nach Zahlen der Marktberatungsfirma Deutsche Windguard stehen in Brandenburg nach Niedersachsen die meisten Windräder in Deutschland. Insgesamt gibt es derzeit rund

25 30 000 Windenergieanlagen, in Brandenburg sind es rund 3800. Viel zu viele, finden die Bürgerinitiativen. „Windkraftanlagen sind ökologisch, ökonomisch und sozial unsinnig“, sagt Stefan Hellert. Die Windkraft sei volatil und nicht grundlastfähig. Der Ausbau aber sei politisch gewollt. „Deswegen wird gebaut.“

Das politische Ziel lautet: weg von fossilen Energieträgern wie Kohle, Öl und Gas, hin zu

30 erneuerbaren Energien aus Wind, Sonne und Biomasse. Bis Ende 2022 soll das letzte Atomkraftwerk abgeschaltet werden, bis 2038 soll Deutschland raus aus der klimaschädlichen Kohleverstromung. Doch der teure Großumbau ist ins Stocken geraten. Vor Ort gibt es viele Proteste und Klagen. Die Strompreise sind hoch. Der Ausbau der Stromnetze verzögert sich. Der Ausbau der Windkraft an Land kam im ersten Halbjahr fast zum Erliegen.

35 Bei der Windkraftlobby herrscht Alarmstimmung. Es gebe zu wenig genehmigte Flächen, Genehmigungsverfahren dauerten oft Jahre, klagt der Präsident des Bundesverbands Windenergie (BWE), Hermann Albers. Ausbauziele bei den erneuerbaren Energien seien in Gefahr. Die Vorwürfe der Windkraftgegner weist der Verband zurück. Ein BWE-Sprecher sagt: „Allen Unkenrufen um die Systemstabilität und die fehlenden Netze oder die fehlende

40 Grundlastfähigkeit der Erneuerbaren zum Trotz haben wir nicht jede Woche Blackouts, sondern eines der sichersten Stromnetze der Welt.“ Auch die Kritik, Windanlagen seien gesundheitsgefährdend, weist die Branche zurück.

Bundeswirtschaftsminister Peter Altmaier (CDU) hat nun ein Krisentreffen zur Windkraft angekündigt. Er will sich voraussichtlich im September mit Vertretern der Branche, von

45 Ländern und Bürgerinitiativen zusammensetzen.

Was dabei herauskommt, ist offen. Die Bürgerinitiativen jedenfalls dürften weiterkämpfen gegen neue Windräder. Und Rainer Ebeling wird weiter seinen „Kopfschmerzkalender“ füllen, den er seit Jahren führt: „Die Kopfschmerzen haben zugenommen. Wenn das so weitergeht mit den Windrädern, überlegen wir hier wegzuziehen.“

Anmerkungen:

Z. 27: volatil – unbeständig

Z. 27: grundlastfähig – in der Lage, kontinuierlich und zuverlässig elektrische Energie bereitzustellen

Klausurteil A

George Monbiot

For the sake of life on Earth, we must put a limit on wealth

It is not quite true that behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Musicians and novelists,

for example, can become extremely rich by giving other people pleasure. But it does appear

to be universally true that in front of every great fortune lies a great crime. Immense wealth

translates automatically into immense environmental impacts, regardless of the intentions

5 of those who possess it. The very wealthy, almost as a matter of definition, are committing

ecocide.

A few weeks ago, I received a letter from a worker at a British private airport. “I see things

that really shouldn’t be happening in 2019,” he wrote. Every day he sees Global 7000 jets,

Gulfstream G650s and even Boeing 737s take off from the airport carrying a single passenger,

10 mostly flying to Russia and the US. The private Boeing 737s, built to take 174 passengers,

are filled at the airport with around 25,000 litres of fuel. That’s as much fossil energy as a

small African town might use in a year.

Where are these single passengers going? Perhaps to visit one of their superhomes, constructed

and run at vast environmental cost, or to take a trip on their superyacht, which might burn

15 500 litres of diesel an hour just ticking over, and which is built and furnished with rare

materials extracted at the expense of beautiful places. […]

A series of research papers shows that income is by far the most important determinant of

environmental impact. It doesn’t matter how green you think you are; if you have surplus

money, you spend it. The only form of consumption that’s clearly and positively correlated

20 with good environmental intentions is diet: people who see themselves as green tend to eat

less meat and more organic vegetables. But attitudes have little bearing on the amount of

transport fuel, home energy and other materials you consume. Money conquers all.

The disastrous effects of spending power are compounded by the psychological impacts of

being wealthy. Plenty of studies show that the richer you are, the less you are able to connect

25 with other people. Wealth suppresses empathy. One paper reveals that drivers in expensive

cars are less likely to stop for people using pedestrian crossings than drivers in cheap cars.

Another revealed that rich people were less able than poorer people to feel compassion

towards children with cancer. Though they are disproportionately responsible for our

environmental crises, the rich will be hurt least and last by planetary disaster, while the

30 poor are hurt first and worst. The richer people are, the research suggests, the less such

knowledge is likely to trouble them.

Another issue is that wealth limits the perspectives of even the best-intentioned people. This

week, Bill Gates argued in an interview with the Financial Times that divesting (ditching

stocks) from fossil fuels is a waste of time. It would be better, he claimed, to pour money

35 into disruptive new technologies with lower emissions. Of course we need new technologies.

But he has missed the crucial point: in seeking to prevent climate breakdown, what counts

is not what you do but what you stop doing. It doesn’t matter how many solar panels you

install if you don’t simultaneously shut down coal and gas burners. Unless existing fossil

fuel plants are retired before the end of their lives, and all exploration and development of

40 new fossil fuel reserves is cancelled, there is little chance of preventing more than 1.5C of

global heating.

But this requires structural change, which involves political intervention as well as technological

innovation: anathema to Silicon Valley billionaires. It demands an acknowledgement that

money is not a magic wand that makes all the bad stuff go away.

45 Tomorrow, I’ll be joining the global climate strike, in which adults will stand with the young

people whose call to action has resonated around the world. As a freelancer, I’ve been

wondering who I’m striking against. Myself? Yes: one aspect of myself, at least. Perhaps

the most radical thing we can now do is to limit our material aspirations. The assumption

on which governments and economists operate is that everyone strives to maximise their

50 wealth. If we succeed in this task, we inevitably demolish our life support systems. Were

the poor to live like the rich, and the rich to live like the oligarchs, we would destroy

everything. The continued pursuit of wealth in a world that has enough already (albeit very

poorly distributed) is a formula for mass destitution.

A meaningful strike in defence of the living world is, in part, a strike against the desire to

55 raise our incomes and accumulate wealth: a desire shaped, more than we are probably aware,

by dominant social and economic narratives. I see myself as striking in support of a radical

and disturbing concept: enough. Individually and collectively, it is time to decide what

“enough” looks like, and how to know when we’ve achieved it.

There’s a name for this approach, coined by the Belgian philosopher Ingrid Robeyns:

60 limitarianism. Robeyns argues that there should be an upper limit to the amount of income

and wealth a person can amass. Just as we recognise a poverty line, below which no one

should fall, we should recognise a riches line, above which no one should rise. This call for

a levelling down is perhaps the most blasphemous idea in contemporary discourse.

But her arguments are sound. Surplus money allows some people to exercise inordinate power

65 over others: in the workplace; in politics; and above all in the capture, use and destruction

of the planet’s natural wealth. If everyone is to flourish, we cannot afford the rich. Nor can

we afford our own aspirations, which the culture of wealth maximisation encourages.

The grim truth is that the rich are able to live as they do only because others are poor: there

is neither the physical nor ecological space for everyone to pursue private luxury. Instead

70 we should strive for private sufficiency, public luxury. Life on Earth depends on moderation.

Annotations:

8–9 Global 7000, Gulfstream G650, Boeing 737 – aircraft types

15 to tick over – (engine) to run slowly while the vehicle is not moving

43 anathema – here: something intensely disliked

51 oligarch – rich and powerful person with a lot of political influence

1. Outline how George Monbiot sees the effects of great personal wealth on the individual as well as on the environment.

(Comprehension) (12 Punkte)

Klausurteil A

George Monbiot

For the sake of life on Earth, we must put a limit on wealth

It is not quite true that behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Musicians and novelists,

for example, can become extremely rich by giving other people pleasure. But it does appear

to be universally true that in front of every great fortune lies a great crime. Immense wealth

translates automatically into immense environmental impacts, regardless of the intentions

5 of those who possess it. The very wealthy, almost as a matter of definition, are committing

ecocide.

A few weeks ago, I received a letter from a worker at a British private airport. “I see things

that really shouldn’t be happening in 2019,” he wrote. Every day he sees Global 7000 jets,

Gulfstream G650s and even Boeing 737s take off from the airport carrying a single passenger,

10 mostly flying to Russia and the US. The private Boeing 737s, built to take 174 passengers,

are filled at the airport with around 25,000 litres of fuel. That’s as much fossil energy as a

small African town might use in a year.

Where are these single passengers going? Perhaps to visit one of their superhomes, constructed

and run at vast environmental cost, or to take a trip on their superyacht, which might burn

15 500 litres of diesel an hour just ticking over, and which is built and furnished with rare

materials extracted at the expense of beautiful places. […]

A series of research papers shows that income is by far the most important determinant of

environmental impact. It doesn’t matter how green you think you are; if you have surplus

money, you spend it. The only form of consumption that’s clearly and positively correlated

20 with good environmental intentions is diet: people who see themselves as green tend to eat

less meat and more organic vegetables. But attitudes have little bearing on the amount of

transport fuel, home energy and other materials you consume. Money conquers all.

The disastrous effects of spending power are compounded by the psychological impacts of

being wealthy. Plenty of studies show that the richer you are, the less you are able to connect

25 with other people. Wealth suppresses empathy. One paper reveals that drivers in expensive

cars are less likely to stop for people using pedestrian crossings than drivers in cheap cars.

Another revealed that rich people were less able than poorer people to feel compassion

towards children with cancer. Though they are disproportionately responsible for our

environmental crises, the rich will be hurt least and last by planetary disaster, while the

30 poor are hurt first and worst. The richer people are, the research suggests, the less such

knowledge is likely to trouble them.

Another issue is that wealth limits the perspectives of even the best-intentioned people. This

week, Bill Gates argued in an interview with the Financial Times that divesting (ditching

stocks) from fossil fuels is a waste of time. It would be better, he claimed, to pour money

35 into disruptive new technologies with lower emissions. Of course we need new technologies.

But he has missed the crucial point: in seeking to prevent climate breakdown, what counts

is not what you do but what you stop doing. It doesn’t matter how many solar panels you

install if you don’t simultaneously shut down coal and gas burners. Unless existing fossil

fuel plants are retired before the end of their lives, and all exploration and development of

40 new fossil fuel reserves is cancelled, there is little chance of preventing more than 1.5C of

global heating.

But this requires structural change, which involves political intervention as well as technological

innovation: anathema to Silicon Valley billionaires. It demands an acknowledgement that

money is not a magic wand that makes all the bad stuff go away.

45 Tomorrow, I’ll be joining the global climate strike, in which adults will stand with the young

people whose call to action has resonated around the world. As a freelancer, I’ve been

wondering who I’m striking against. Myself? Yes: one aspect of myself, at least. Perhaps

the most radical thing we can now do is to limit our material aspirations. The assumption

on which governments and economists operate is that everyone strives to maximise their

50 wealth. If we succeed in this task, we inevitably demolish our life support systems. Were

the poor to live like the rich, and the rich to live like the oligarchs, we would destroy

everything. The continued pursuit of wealth in a world that has enough already (albeit very

poorly distributed) is a formula for mass destitution.

A meaningful strike in defence of the living world is, in part, a strike against the desire to

55 raise our incomes and accumulate wealth: a desire shaped, more than we are probably aware,

by dominant social and economic narratives. I see myself as striking in support of a radical

and disturbing concept: enough. Individually and collectively, it is time to decide what

“enough” looks like, and how to know when we’ve achieved it.

There’s a name for this approach, coined by the Belgian philosopher Ingrid Robeyns:

60 limitarianism. Robeyns argues that there should be an upper limit to the amount of income

and wealth a person can amass. Just as we recognise a poverty line, below which no one

should fall, we should recognise a riches line, above which no one should rise. This call for

a levelling down is perhaps the most blasphemous idea in contemporary discourse.

But her arguments are sound. Surplus money allows some people to exercise inordinate power

65 over others: in the workplace; in politics; and above all in the capture, use and destruction

of the planet’s natural wealth. If everyone is to flourish, we cannot afford the rich. Nor can

we afford our own aspirations, which the culture of wealth maximisation encourages.

The grim truth is that the rich are able to live as they do only because others are poor: there

is neither the physical nor ecological space for everyone to pursue private luxury. Instead

70 we should strive for private sufficiency, public luxury. Life on Earth depends on moderation.

Annotations:

8–9 Global 7000, Gulfstream G650, Boeing 737 – aircraft types

15 to tick over – (engine) to run slowly while the vehicle is not moving

43 anathema – here: something intensely disliked

51 oligarch – rich and powerful person with a lot of political influence

2. Analyse how the author seeks to persuade readers of his view on the topic. Concentrate on the line of argument and the communicative strategies used.

(Analysis) (16 Punkte)

Klausurteil A

George Monbiot

For the sake of life on Earth, we must put a limit on wealth

It is not quite true that behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Musicians and novelists,

for example, can become extremely rich by giving other people pleasure. But it does appear

to be universally true that in front of every great fortune lies a great crime. Immense wealth

translates automatically into immense environmental impacts, regardless of the intentions

5 of those who possess it. The very wealthy, almost as a matter of definition, are committing

ecocide.

A few weeks ago, I received a letter from a worker at a British private airport. “I see things

that really shouldn’t be happening in 2019,” he wrote. Every day he sees Global 7000 jets,

Gulfstream G650s and even Boeing 737s take off from the airport carrying a single passenger,

10 mostly flying to Russia and the US. The private Boeing 737s, built to take 174 passengers,

are filled at the airport with around 25,000 litres of fuel. That’s as much fossil energy as a

small African town might use in a year.

Where are these single passengers going? Perhaps to visit one of their superhomes, constructed

and run at vast environmental cost, or to take a trip on their superyacht, which might burn

15 500 litres of diesel an hour just ticking over, and which is built and furnished with rare

materials extracted at the expense of beautiful places. […]

A series of research papers shows that income is by far the most important determinant of

environmental impact. It doesn’t matter how green you think you are; if you have surplus

money, you spend it. The only form of consumption that’s clearly and positively correlated

20 with good environmental intentions is diet: people who see themselves as green tend to eat

less meat and more organic vegetables. But attitudes have little bearing on the amount of

transport fuel, home energy and other materials you consume. Money conquers all.

The disastrous effects of spending power are compounded by the psychological impacts of

being wealthy. Plenty of studies show that the richer you are, the less you are able to connect

25 with other people. Wealth suppresses empathy. One paper reveals that drivers in expensive

cars are less likely to stop for people using pedestrian crossings than drivers in cheap cars.

Another revealed that rich people were less able than poorer people to feel compassion

towards children with cancer. Though they are disproportionately responsible for our

environmental crises, the rich will be hurt least and last by planetary disaster, while the

30 poor are hurt first and worst. The richer people are, the research suggests, the less such

knowledge is likely to trouble them.

Another issue is that wealth limits the perspectives of even the best-intentioned people. This

week, Bill Gates argued in an interview with the Financial Times that divesting (ditching

stocks) from fossil fuels is a waste of time. It would be better, he claimed, to pour money

35 into disruptive new technologies with lower emissions. Of course we need new technologies.

But he has missed the crucial point: in seeking to prevent climate breakdown, what counts

is not what you do but what you stop doing. It doesn’t matter how many solar panels you

install if you don’t simultaneously shut down coal and gas burners. Unless existing fossil

fuel plants are retired before the end of their lives, and all exploration and development of

40 new fossil fuel reserves is cancelled, there is little chance of preventing more than 1.5C of

global heating.

But this requires structural change, which involves political intervention as well as technological

innovation: anathema to Silicon Valley billionaires. It demands an acknowledgement that

money is not a magic wand that makes all the bad stuff go away.

45 Tomorrow, I’ll be joining the global climate strike, in which adults will stand with the young

people whose call to action has resonated around the world. As a freelancer, I’ve been

wondering who I’m striking against. Myself? Yes: one aspect of myself, at least. Perhaps

the most radical thing we can now do is to limit our material aspirations. The assumption

on which governments and economists operate is that everyone strives to maximise their

50 wealth. If we succeed in this task, we inevitably demolish our life support systems. Were

the poor to live like the rich, and the rich to live like the oligarchs, we would destroy

everything. The continued pursuit of wealth in a world that has enough already (albeit very

poorly distributed) is a formula for mass destitution.

A meaningful strike in defence of the living world is, in part, a strike against the desire to

55 raise our incomes and accumulate wealth: a desire shaped, more than we are probably aware,

by dominant social and economic narratives. I see myself as striking in support of a radical

and disturbing concept: enough. Individually and collectively, it is time to decide what

“enough” looks like, and how to know when we’ve achieved it.

There’s a name for this approach, coined by the Belgian philosopher Ingrid Robeyns:

60 limitarianism. Robeyns argues that there should be an upper limit to the amount of income

and wealth a person can amass. Just as we recognise a poverty line, below which no one

should fall, we should recognise a riches line, above which no one should rise. This call for

a levelling down is perhaps the most blasphemous idea in contemporary discourse.

But her arguments are sound. Surplus money allows some people to exercise inordinate power

65 over others: in the workplace; in politics; and above all in the capture, use and destruction

of the planet’s natural wealth. If everyone is to flourish, we cannot afford the rich. Nor can

we afford our own aspirations, which the culture of wealth maximisation encourages.

The grim truth is that the rich are able to live as they do only because others are poor: there

is neither the physical nor ecological space for everyone to pursue private luxury. Instead

70 we should strive for private sufficiency, public luxury. Life on Earth depends on moderation.

Annotations:

8–9 Global 7000, Gulfstream G650, Boeing 737 – aircraft types

15 to tick over – (engine) to run slowly while the vehicle is not moving

43 anathema – here: something intensely disliked

51 oligarch – rich and powerful person with a lot of political influence

3.1 Assess the claim made by George Monbiot that "in seeking to prevent climate breakdown, what counts is not what you do but what you stop doing" (ll. 36 – 37). Draw on the text and on what you have covered in class regarding the ecological and economic aspects of globalisation.

(Evaluation: comment) (14 Punkte)

Klausurteil A

George Monbiot

For the sake of life on Earth, we must put a limit on wealth

It is not quite true that behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Musicians and novelists,

for example, can become extremely rich by giving other people pleasure. But it does appear

to be universally true that in front of every great fortune lies a great crime. Immense wealth

translates automatically into immense environmental impacts, regardless of the intentions

5 of those who possess it. The very wealthy, almost as a matter of definition, are committing

ecocide.

A few weeks ago, I received a letter from a worker at a British private airport. “I see things

that really shouldn’t be happening in 2019,” he wrote. Every day he sees Global 7000 jets,

Gulfstream G650s and even Boeing 737s take off from the airport carrying a single passenger,

10 mostly flying to Russia and the US. The private Boeing 737s, built to take 174 passengers,

are filled at the airport with around 25,000 litres of fuel. That’s as much fossil energy as a

small African town might use in a year.

Where are these single passengers going? Perhaps to visit one of their superhomes, constructed

and run at vast environmental cost, or to take a trip on their superyacht, which might burn

15 500 litres of diesel an hour just ticking over, and which is built and furnished with rare

materials extracted at the expense of beautiful places. […]

A series of research papers shows that income is by far the most important determinant of

environmental impact. It doesn’t matter how green you think you are; if you have surplus

money, you spend it. The only form of consumption that’s clearly and positively correlated

20 with good environmental intentions is diet: people who see themselves as green tend to eat

less meat and more organic vegetables. But attitudes have little bearing on the amount of

transport fuel, home energy and other materials you consume. Money conquers all.

The disastrous effects of spending power are compounded by the psychological impacts of

being wealthy. Plenty of studies show that the richer you are, the less you are able to connect

25 with other people. Wealth suppresses empathy. One paper reveals that drivers in expensive

cars are less likely to stop for people using pedestrian crossings than drivers in cheap cars.

Another revealed that rich people were less able than poorer people to feel compassion

towards children with cancer. Though they are disproportionately responsible for our

environmental crises, the rich will be hurt least and last by planetary disaster, while the

30 poor are hurt first and worst. The richer people are, the research suggests, the less such

knowledge is likely to trouble them.

Another issue is that wealth limits the perspectives of even the best-intentioned people. This

week, Bill Gates argued in an interview with the Financial Times that divesting (ditching

stocks) from fossil fuels is a waste of time. It would be better, he claimed, to pour money

35 into disruptive new technologies with lower emissions. Of course we need new technologies.

But he has missed the crucial point: in seeking to prevent climate breakdown, what counts

is not what you do but what you stop doing. It doesn’t matter how many solar panels you

install if you don’t simultaneously shut down coal and gas burners. Unless existing fossil

fuel plants are retired before the end of their lives, and all exploration and development of

40 new fossil fuel reserves is cancelled, there is little chance of preventing more than 1.5C of

global heating.

But this requires structural change, which involves political intervention as well as technological

innovation: anathema to Silicon Valley billionaires. It demands an acknowledgement that

money is not a magic wand that makes all the bad stuff go away.

45 Tomorrow, I’ll be joining the global climate strike, in which adults will stand with the young

people whose call to action has resonated around the world. As a freelancer, I’ve been

wondering who I’m striking against. Myself? Yes: one aspect of myself, at least. Perhaps

the most radical thing we can now do is to limit our material aspirations. The assumption

on which governments and economists operate is that everyone strives to maximise their

50 wealth. If we succeed in this task, we inevitably demolish our life support systems. Were

the poor to live like the rich, and the rich to live like the oligarchs, we would destroy

everything. The continued pursuit of wealth in a world that has enough already (albeit very

poorly distributed) is a formula for mass destitution.

A meaningful strike in defence of the living world is, in part, a strike against the desire to

55 raise our incomes and accumulate wealth: a desire shaped, more than we are probably aware,

by dominant social and economic narratives. I see myself as striking in support of a radical

and disturbing concept: enough. Individually and collectively, it is time to decide what

“enough” looks like, and how to know when we’ve achieved it.

There’s a name for this approach, coined by the Belgian philosopher Ingrid Robeyns:

60 limitarianism. Robeyns argues that there should be an upper limit to the amount of income

and wealth a person can amass. Just as we recognise a poverty line, below which no one

should fall, we should recognise a riches line, above which no one should rise. This call for

a levelling down is perhaps the most blasphemous idea in contemporary discourse.

But her arguments are sound. Surplus money allows some people to exercise inordinate power

65 over others: in the workplace; in politics; and above all in the capture, use and destruction

of the planet’s natural wealth. If everyone is to flourish, we cannot afford the rich. Nor can

we afford our own aspirations, which the culture of wealth maximisation encourages.

The grim truth is that the rich are able to live as they do only because others are poor: there

is neither the physical nor ecological space for everyone to pursue private luxury. Instead

70 we should strive for private sufficiency, public luxury. Life on Earth depends on moderation.

Annotations:

8–9 Global 7000, Gulfstream G650, Boeing 737 – aircraft types

15 to tick over – (engine) to run slowly while the vehicle is not moving

43 anathema – here: something intensely disliked

51 oligarch – rich and powerful person with a lot of political influence

3.2 Together with your British partner school, you are attending an online conference entitled Time for Change – New Ways of Living for the 21st Century. Write a debate statement on the conference topic. Draw on what you have covered in class about social and political realities in a globalised world.

(Evaluation: re-creation of text) (14 Punkte)

Together with your British partner, you are taking part in an international project dealing with the growing social and political rift in Western societies.

Write an email to her/him in which you sum up what the article „Wer beherrscht Deutschland? Von der Politik ignoriert“ states about how East Germany has developed since the fall of the Berlin Wall and which challenges Germany continues to face today.

Klausurteil A

George Monbiot

For the sake of life on Earth, we must put a limit on wealth

It is not quite true that behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Musicians and novelists,

for example, can become extremely rich by giving other people pleasure. But it does appear

to be universally true that in front of every great fortune lies a great crime. Immense wealth

translates automatically into immense environmental impacts, regardless of the intentions

5 of those who possess it. The very wealthy, almost as a matter of definition, are committing

ecocide.

A few weeks ago, I received a letter from a worker at a British private airport. “I see things

that really shouldn’t be happening in 2019,” he wrote. Every day he sees Global 7000 jets,

Gulfstream G650s and even Boeing 737s take off from the airport carrying a single passenger,

10 mostly flying to Russia and the US. The private Boeing 737s, built to take 174 passengers,

are filled at the airport with around 25,000 litres of fuel. That’s as much fossil energy as a

small African town might use in a year.

Where are these single passengers going? Perhaps to visit one of their superhomes, constructed

and run at vast environmental cost, or to take a trip on their superyacht, which might burn

15 500 litres of diesel an hour just ticking over, and which is built and furnished with rare

materials extracted at the expense of beautiful places. […]

A series of research papers shows that income is by far the most important determinant of

environmental impact. It doesn’t matter how green you think you are; if you have surplus

money, you spend it. The only form of consumption that’s clearly and positively correlated

20 with good environmental intentions is diet: people who see themselves as green tend to eat

less meat and more organic vegetables. But attitudes have little bearing on the amount of

transport fuel, home energy and other materials you consume. Money conquers all.

The disastrous effects of spending power are compounded by the psychological impacts of

being wealthy. Plenty of studies show that the richer you are, the less you are able to connect

25 with other people. Wealth suppresses empathy. One paper reveals that drivers in expensive

cars are less likely to stop for people using pedestrian crossings than drivers in cheap cars.

Another revealed that rich people were less able than poorer people to feel compassion

towards children with cancer. Though they are disproportionately responsible for our

environmental crises, the rich will be hurt least and last by planetary disaster, while the

30 poor are hurt first and worst. The richer people are, the research suggests, the less such

knowledge is likely to trouble them.

Another issue is that wealth limits the perspectives of even the best-intentioned people. This

week, Bill Gates argued in an interview with the Financial Times that divesting (ditching

stocks) from fossil fuels is a waste of time. It would be better, he claimed, to pour money

35 into disruptive new technologies with lower emissions. Of course we need new technologies.

But he has missed the crucial point: in seeking to prevent climate breakdown, what counts

is not what you do but what you stop doing. It doesn’t matter how many solar panels you

install if you don’t simultaneously shut down coal and gas burners. Unless existing fossil

fuel plants are retired before the end of their lives, and all exploration and development of

40 new fossil fuel reserves is cancelled, there is little chance of preventing more than 1.5C of

global heating.

But this requires structural change, which involves political intervention as well as technological

innovation: anathema to Silicon Valley billionaires. It demands an acknowledgement that

money is not a magic wand that makes all the bad stuff go away.

45 Tomorrow, I’ll be joining the global climate strike, in which adults will stand with the young

people whose call to action has resonated around the world. As a freelancer, I’ve been

wondering who I’m striking against. Myself? Yes: one aspect of myself, at least. Perhaps

the most radical thing we can now do is to limit our material aspirations. The assumption

on which governments and economists operate is that everyone strives to maximise their

50 wealth. If we succeed in this task, we inevitably demolish our life support systems. Were

the poor to live like the rich, and the rich to live like the oligarchs, we would destroy

everything. The continued pursuit of wealth in a world that has enough already (albeit very

poorly distributed) is a formula for mass destitution.

A meaningful strike in defence of the living world is, in part, a strike against the desire to

55 raise our incomes and accumulate wealth: a desire shaped, more than we are probably aware,

by dominant social and economic narratives. I see myself as striking in support of a radical

and disturbing concept: enough. Individually and collectively, it is time to decide what

“enough” looks like, and how to know when we’ve achieved it.

There’s a name for this approach, coined by the Belgian philosopher Ingrid Robeyns:

60 limitarianism. Robeyns argues that there should be an upper limit to the amount of income

and wealth a person can amass. Just as we recognise a poverty line, below which no one

should fall, we should recognise a riches line, above which no one should rise. This call for

a levelling down is perhaps the most blasphemous idea in contemporary discourse.

But her arguments are sound. Surplus money allows some people to exercise inordinate power

65 over others: in the workplace; in politics; and above all in the capture, use and destruction

of the planet’s natural wealth. If everyone is to flourish, we cannot afford the rich. Nor can

we afford our own aspirations, which the culture of wealth maximisation encourages.

The grim truth is that the rich are able to live as they do only because others are poor: there

is neither the physical nor ecological space for everyone to pursue private luxury. Instead

70 we should strive for private sufficiency, public luxury. Life on Earth depends on moderation.

Annotations:

8–9 Global 7000, Gulfstream G650, Boeing 737 – aircraft types

15 to tick over – (engine) to run slowly while the vehicle is not moving

43 anathema – here: something intensely disliked

51 oligarch – rich and powerful person with a lot of political influence

Wer beherrscht Deutschland? Von der Politik ignoriert

Dreißig Jahre sind seit der Friedlichen Revolution im Herbst 1989 und dem Fall der Mauer, als sich die Deutschen noch freudetrunken in die Arme sanken, vergangen. Aller Orten wird gefeiert und der historischen Geschehnisse mit mehr oder weniger großem Pomp gedacht. Und es wird Bilanz gezogen.

Wie ist es etwa um die Teilhabe der Ostdeutschen im vereinten Deutschland mittlerweile bestellt? Die Befunde gleichen sich Jahr für Jahr: Im Osten gibt es kein einziges DAX-Unternehmen, in den Vorständen großer Unternehmen sind Ostdeutsche mit lediglich zwei Prozent der Führungskräfte vertreten, die wirkmächtigen Medien sowie die Universitäten, die immerhin die vorherrschende Meinung im Land produzieren, sind fest in westdeutscher Hand.

Lediglich in den Gewerkschaften haben sich Ostdeutsche in nennenswerter Zahl auf den einen und anderen Führungsposten vorkämpfen können. Insofern sind die Machtverhältnisse in Deutschland nach wie vor ausgesprochen asymmetrisch. Anders gesagt: Wo es lang geht, bestimmt der Westen.

Seit 1990 sind Milliarden in den Osten geflossen, um eine möglichst zügige Angleichung der Lebensverhältnisse zu schaffen. Tatsächlich ist viel erreicht worden. Und dennoch sind viele Ostdeutsche unzufrieden. Sie fühlen sich unverstanden von den Eliten im Westen, nicht gewürdigt in ihrer Lebensleistung und bezeichnen sich selbst als „Deutsche zweiter Klasse“. Um sich Gehör zu verschaffen und die Mächtigen im Westen zu zwingen, den Osten endlich wahrzunehmen, wählen manche von ihnen Protestparteien. Einst die Linkspartei, die mittlerweile aber doch auch zum Establishment gehört, nun eben mehrheitlich die rechtspopulistische AfD. Oder sie wenden sich desillusioniert gleich ganz von der Politik ab. Die Eliten im Westen sind darüber erschrocken und rätseln über die merkwürdige Spezies östlich der Elbe.

Nirgendwo in den einstigen sozialistischen Staaten brach die Wirtschaft nach 1990 derart verheerend ein wie im Osten Deutschlands. Wirtschaftlicher Ruin, Abwanderung von Millionen Ostdeutschen in den Westen, Eliteaustausch und ein grundlegender politischer und kultureller Wandel sind Grunderfahrungen der Ostdeutschen. Die Menschen scheiterten damals nicht, sondern „wurden gescheitert“, schreibt der Soziologe Wolfgang Engler. Und diese Grunderfahrungen wirken bis heute heftig nach. Gleichzeitig machten die Ostdeutschen ganz neue Erfahrungen im neuen deutschen Vaterland: Massenarbeitslosigkeit etwa, prekäre Arbeitsverhältnisse, Altersarmut, kaum gewerkschaftliche Einflüsse sowie die Verödung ganzer Landstriche.

Möglicherweise sind die Ostdeutschen stets eine „Avantgarde“ (Wolfgang Engler) gewesen. Im Osten jedenfalls traten und treten gesellschaftliche Verwerfungen und Probleme nur schärfer konturiert und eher hervor als im Westen. Und auch ein Phänomen, das heute Ost und West gleichermaßen betrifft, war in seiner gewaltigen Ausprägung zunächst nur auf Ostdeutschland beschränkt.

Die Menschen im unteren Drittel der Gesellschaft nämlich, das sogenannte Prekariat, scheint mittlerweile unbeirrt auf dem Weg zu sein, die deutsche Einheit tatsächlich zu vollenden. Die armen, sozial schwachen Leute haben in Ost und West nämlich ganz ähnliche Probleme: mit prekären Arbeitsverhältnissen etwa, miserablen Zukunftsaussichten für ihre Kinder und der Sorge, auch künftig noch das Geld für die Miete aufbringen zu können. Das ist in Berlin oder Leipzig nicht anders als in München oder Köln. Und abgehängte Landschaften und Regionen gibt es heute im Westen ebenso wie im Osten. Und so wird vielleicht langsam deutlich, dass bei allen gravierenden Differenzen zwischen Ost und West es wenigstens einen Bereich gibt, wo sich die beiden Teile Deutschlands durchaus annähern. Denn spätestens seit der Bankenkrise 2008 ist deutlich geworden, dass eine wachsende Kluft zwischen Arm und Reich das Land teilt – in die da oben und die da unten. Laut einer Studie des Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Instituts (WSI) der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung vom Herbst 2019 verstärkt sich zum Beispiel derzeit wieder die Ungleichheit bei den Einkommen erheblich.

Wer gut verdient, bekommt noch mehr, schlecht Verdienende müssen dagegen teils gravierende Einbußen hinnehmen. Das untere Drittel der Gesellschaft wird abgehängt, und zwar in Ost und West gleichermaßen.

Klausurteil A

Shoshana Zuboff

The Surveillance Threat Is Not What Orwell Imagined

In this text, the author and scholar Shoshana Zuboff reflects on 1984, Orwell's dystopian novel from 1949, which portrays a society where the state and its leader Big Brother exercise complete control over its citizens.

George Orwell repeatedly delayed crucial medical care to complete 1984, the book still

synonymous with our worst fears of a totalitarian future – published 70 years ago this month.

Half a year after his novel’s debut, he was dead. Because he believed everything was at stake,

he forfeited everything, including a young son, a devoted sister, a wife of three months and

5 a grateful public that canonized his prescient and pressing novel. But today we are haunted

by a question: Did George Orwell die in vain?

Orwell sought to awaken British and U.S. societies to the totalitarian dangers that threatened

democracy even after the Nazi defeat. In letters before and after his novel’s completion,

Orwell urged “constant criticism,” warning that any “immunity” to totalitarianism must not

10 be taken for granted: “Totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.”

Since 1984 ’s publication, we have assumed with Orwell that the dangers of mass surveillance

and social control could only originate in the state. We were wrong. This error has left us

unprotected from an equally pernicious but profoundly different threat to freedom and

democracy.

15 For 19 years, private companies practicing an unprecedented economic logic that I call

surveillance capitalism have hijacked the Internet and its digital technologies. Invented at

Google beginning in 2000, this new economics covertly claims private human experience

as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. Some data are used to improve

services, but the rest are turned into computational products that predict your behavior.

20 These predictions are traded in a new futures market, where surveillance capitalists sell

certainty to businesses determined to know what we will do next. This logic was first

applied to finding which ads online will attract our interest, but similar practices now reside

in nearly every sector – insurance, retail, health, education, finance and more – where

personal experience is secretly captured and computed for behavioral predictions. By now it

25 is no exaggeration to say that the Internet is owned and operated by private surveillance

capital.

In the competition for certainty, surveillance capitalists learned that the most predictive data

come not just from monitoring but also from modifying and directing behavior. For example,

by 2013, Facebook had learned how to engineer subliminal cues on its pages to shape users’

30 real-world actions and feelings. Later, these methods were combined with real-time emotional

analyses, allowing marketers to cue behavior at the moment of maximum vulnerability. These

inventions were celebrated for being both effective and undetectable. Cambridge Analytica

later demonstrated that the same methods could be employed to shape political rather than

commercial behavior.

35 Augmented reality game Pokémon Go, developed at Google and released in 2016 by a

Google spinoff, took the challenge of mass behavioral modification to a new level. Business

customers from McDonalds to Starbucks paid for “footfall” to their establishments on a

“cost per visit” basis, just as online advertisers pay for “cost per click.” The game engineers

learned how to herd people through their towns and cities to destinations that contribute

40 profits, all of it without game players’ knowledge.

Democracy slept while surveillance capitalism flourished. As a result, surveillance capitalists

now wield a uniquely 21st century quality of power, as unprecedented as totalitarianism

was nearly a century ago. I call it instrumentarian power, because it works its will through

the ubiquitous architecture of digital instrumentation. Rather than an intimate Big Brother

45 that uses murder and terror to possess each soul from the inside out, these digital networks

are a Big Other: impersonal systems trained to monitor and shape our actions remotely,

unimpeded by law.

Instrumentarian power delivers our futures to surveillance capitalism’s interests, yet because

this new power does not claim our bodies through violence and fear, we undervalue its

50 effects and lower our guard. Instrumentarian power does not want to break us; it simply

wants to automate us. To this end, it exiles us from our own behavior. It does not care what

we think, feel or do, as long as we think, feel and do things in ways that are accessible to

Big Other’s billions of sensate, computational, actuating eyes and ears.

Instrumentarian power challenges democracy. Big Other knows everything, while its operations

55 remain hidden, eliminating our right to resist. This undermines human autonomy and self-

determination, without which democracy cannot survive. Instrumentarian power creates

unprecedented asymmetries of knowledge, once associated with pre-modern times. Big

Other’s knowledge is about us, but it is not used for us. Big Other knows everything about

us, while we know almost nothing about it. This imbalance of power is not illegal, because

60 we do not yet have laws to control it, but it is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Surveillance capitalists claim that their methods are inevitable consequences of digital

technologies. This is false. It’s easy to imagine the digital future without surveillance

capitalism, but impossible to imagine surveillance capitalism without digital technologies.

Seven decades later, we can honor Orwell’s death by refusing to cede the digital future.

65 Orwell despised “the instinct to bow down before the conqueror of the moment.” Courage,

he insisted, demands that we assert our moral bearings, even against forces that appear

invincible. Like Orwell, think critically and criticize. Do not take freedom for granted. Fight

for the one idea in the long human story that asserts the people’s right to rule themselves.

Orwell reckoned it was worth dying for.

Annotations:

32 Cambridge Analytica – British political consulting firm that was involved in influencing hundreds of elections globally

35 Pokémon Go – augmented reality mobile game where virtual creatures appear as if they were in the player’s real-world location

36 spinoff – a division of a company that has become independent

53 sensate – recognised by the means of senses

53 actuating – to make someone behave in a particular way

1. Outline Shoshana Zuboff's statements on George Orwell and his writing, and on the risks that the digital age poses to society. (Comprehension) [12 Punkte]

Klausurteil A

Shoshana Zuboff

The Surveillance Threat Is Not What Orwell Imagined

In this text, the author and scholar Shoshana Zuboff reflects on 1984, Orwell's dystopian novel from 1949, which portrays a society where the state and its leader Big Brother exercise complete control over its citizens.

George Orwell repeatedly delayed crucial medical care to complete 1984, the book still

synonymous with our worst fears of a totalitarian future – published 70 years ago this month.

Half a year after his novel’s debut, he was dead. Because he believed everything was at stake,

he forfeited everything, including a young son, a devoted sister, a wife of three months and

5 a grateful public that canonized his prescient and pressing novel. But today we are haunted

by a question: Did George Orwell die in vain?

Orwell sought to awaken British and U.S. societies to the totalitarian dangers that threatened

democracy even after the Nazi defeat. In letters before and after his novel’s completion,

Orwell urged “constant criticism,” warning that any “immunity” to totalitarianism must not

10 be taken for granted: “Totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.”

Since 1984 ’s publication, we have assumed with Orwell that the dangers of mass surveillance

and social control could only originate in the state. We were wrong. This error has left us

unprotected from an equally pernicious but profoundly different threat to freedom and

democracy.

15 For 19 years, private companies practicing an unprecedented economic logic that I call

surveillance capitalism have hijacked the Internet and its digital technologies. Invented at

Google beginning in 2000, this new economics covertly claims private human experience

as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. Some data are used to improve

services, but the rest are turned into computational products that predict your behavior.

20 These predictions are traded in a new futures market, where surveillance capitalists sell

certainty to businesses determined to know what we will do next. This logic was first

applied to finding which ads online will attract our interest, but similar practices now reside

in nearly every sector – insurance, retail, health, education, finance and more – where

personal experience is secretly captured and computed for behavioral predictions. By now it

25 is no exaggeration to say that the Internet is owned and operated by private surveillance

capital.

In the competition for certainty, surveillance capitalists learned that the most predictive data

come not just from monitoring but also from modifying and directing behavior. For example,

by 2013, Facebook had learned how to engineer subliminal cues on its pages to shape users’

30 real-world actions and feelings. Later, these methods were combined with real-time emotional

analyses, allowing marketers to cue behavior at the moment of maximum vulnerability. These

inventions were celebrated for being both effective and undetectable. Cambridge Analytica

later demonstrated that the same methods could be employed to shape political rather than

commercial behavior.

35 Augmented reality game Pokémon Go, developed at Google and released in 2016 by a

Google spinoff, took the challenge of mass behavioral modification to a new level. Business

customers from McDonalds to Starbucks paid for “footfall” to their establishments on a

“cost per visit” basis, just as online advertisers pay for “cost per click.” The game engineers

learned how to herd people through their towns and cities to destinations that contribute

40 profits, all of it without game players’ knowledge.

Democracy slept while surveillance capitalism flourished. As a result, surveillance capitalists

now wield a uniquely 21st century quality of power, as unprecedented as totalitarianism

was nearly a century ago. I call it instrumentarian power, because it works its will through

the ubiquitous architecture of digital instrumentation. Rather than an intimate Big Brother

45 that uses murder and terror to possess each soul from the inside out, these digital networks

are a Big Other: impersonal systems trained to monitor and shape our actions remotely,

unimpeded by law.

Instrumentarian power delivers our futures to surveillance capitalism’s interests, yet because

this new power does not claim our bodies through violence and fear, we undervalue its

50 effects and lower our guard. Instrumentarian power does not want to break us; it simply

wants to automate us. To this end, it exiles us from our own behavior. It does not care what

we think, feel or do, as long as we think, feel and do things in ways that are accessible to

Big Other’s billions of sensate, computational, actuating eyes and ears.

Instrumentarian power challenges democracy. Big Other knows everything, while its operations

55 remain hidden, eliminating our right to resist. This undermines human autonomy and self-

determination, without which democracy cannot survive. Instrumentarian power creates

unprecedented asymmetries of knowledge, once associated with pre-modern times. Big

Other’s knowledge is about us, but it is not used for us. Big Other knows everything about

us, while we know almost nothing about it. This imbalance of power is not illegal, because

60 we do not yet have laws to control it, but it is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Surveillance capitalists claim that their methods are inevitable consequences of digital

technologies. This is false. It’s easy to imagine the digital future without surveillance

capitalism, but impossible to imagine surveillance capitalism without digital technologies.

Seven decades later, we can honor Orwell’s death by refusing to cede the digital future.

65 Orwell despised “the instinct to bow down before the conqueror of the moment.” Courage,

he insisted, demands that we assert our moral bearings, even against forces that appear

invincible. Like Orwell, think critically and criticize. Do not take freedom for granted. Fight

for the one idea in the long human story that asserts the people’s right to rule themselves.

Orwell reckoned it was worth dying for.

Annotations:

32 Cambridge Analytica – British political consulting firm that was involved in influencing hundreds of elections globally

35 Pokémon Go – augmented reality mobile game where virtual creatures appear as if they were in the player’s real-world location

36 spinoff – a division of a company that has become independent

53 sensate – recognised by the means of senses

53 actuating – to make someone behave in a particular way

2. Examine the way in which Zuboff conveys her position on mass surveillance and social control in the 21st century. Take into account both her line of argument and her use of language. (Analysis) [16 Punkte]

Klausurteil A

Shoshana Zuboff

The Surveillance Threat Is Not What Orwell Imagined

In this text, the author and scholar Shoshana Zuboff reflects on 1984, Orwell's dystopian novel from 1949, which portrays a society where the state and its leader Big Brother exercise complete control over its citizens.

George Orwell repeatedly delayed crucial medical care to complete 1984, the book still

synonymous with our worst fears of a totalitarian future – published 70 years ago this month.

Half a year after his novel’s debut, he was dead. Because he believed everything was at stake,

he forfeited everything, including a young son, a devoted sister, a wife of three months and

5 a grateful public that canonized his prescient and pressing novel. But today we are haunted

by a question: Did George Orwell die in vain?

Orwell sought to awaken British and U.S. societies to the totalitarian dangers that threatened

democracy even after the Nazi defeat. In letters before and after his novel’s completion,

Orwell urged “constant criticism,” warning that any “immunity” to totalitarianism must not

10 be taken for granted: “Totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.”

Since 1984 ’s publication, we have assumed with Orwell that the dangers of mass surveillance

and social control could only originate in the state. We were wrong. This error has left us

unprotected from an equally pernicious but profoundly different threat to freedom and

democracy.

15 For 19 years, private companies practicing an unprecedented economic logic that I call

surveillance capitalism have hijacked the Internet and its digital technologies. Invented at

Google beginning in 2000, this new economics covertly claims private human experience

as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. Some data are used to improve

services, but the rest are turned into computational products that predict your behavior.

20 These predictions are traded in a new futures market, where surveillance capitalists sell

certainty to businesses determined to know what we will do next. This logic was first

applied to finding which ads online will attract our interest, but similar practices now reside

in nearly every sector – insurance, retail, health, education, finance and more – where

personal experience is secretly captured and computed for behavioral predictions. By now it

25 is no exaggeration to say that the Internet is owned and operated by private surveillance

capital.

In the competition for certainty, surveillance capitalists learned that the most predictive data

come not just from monitoring but also from modifying and directing behavior. For example,

by 2013, Facebook had learned how to engineer subliminal cues on its pages to shape users’

30 real-world actions and feelings. Later, these methods were combined with real-time emotional

analyses, allowing marketers to cue behavior at the moment of maximum vulnerability. These

inventions were celebrated for being both effective and undetectable. Cambridge Analytica

later demonstrated that the same methods could be employed to shape political rather than

commercial behavior.

35 Augmented reality game Pokémon Go, developed at Google and released in 2016 by a

Google spinoff, took the challenge of mass behavioral modification to a new level. Business

customers from McDonalds to Starbucks paid for “footfall” to their establishments on a

“cost per visit” basis, just as online advertisers pay for “cost per click.” The game engineers

learned how to herd people through their towns and cities to destinations that contribute

40 profits, all of it without game players’ knowledge.

Democracy slept while surveillance capitalism flourished. As a result, surveillance capitalists

now wield a uniquely 21st century quality of power, as unprecedented as totalitarianism

was nearly a century ago. I call it instrumentarian power, because it works its will through

the ubiquitous architecture of digital instrumentation. Rather than an intimate Big Brother

45 that uses murder and terror to possess each soul from the inside out, these digital networks

are a Big Other: impersonal systems trained to monitor and shape our actions remotely,

unimpeded by law.

Instrumentarian power delivers our futures to surveillance capitalism’s interests, yet because

this new power does not claim our bodies through violence and fear, we undervalue its

50 effects and lower our guard. Instrumentarian power does not want to break us; it simply

wants to automate us. To this end, it exiles us from our own behavior. It does not care what

we think, feel or do, as long as we think, feel and do things in ways that are accessible to

Big Other’s billions of sensate, computational, actuating eyes and ears.

Instrumentarian power challenges democracy. Big Other knows everything, while its operations

55 remain hidden, eliminating our right to resist. This undermines human autonomy and self-

determination, without which democracy cannot survive. Instrumentarian power creates

unprecedented asymmetries of knowledge, once associated with pre-modern times. Big

Other’s knowledge is about us, but it is not used for us. Big Other knows everything about

us, while we know almost nothing about it. This imbalance of power is not illegal, because

60 we do not yet have laws to control it, but it is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Surveillance capitalists claim that their methods are inevitable consequences of digital

technologies. This is false. It’s easy to imagine the digital future without surveillance

capitalism, but impossible to imagine surveillance capitalism without digital technologies.

Seven decades later, we can honor Orwell’s death by refusing to cede the digital future.

65 Orwell despised “the instinct to bow down before the conqueror of the moment.” Courage,

he insisted, demands that we assert our moral bearings, even against forces that appear

invincible. Like Orwell, think critically and criticize. Do not take freedom for granted. Fight

for the one idea in the long human story that asserts the people’s right to rule themselves.

Orwell reckoned it was worth dying for.

Annotations:

32 Cambridge Analytica – British political consulting firm that was involved in influencing hundreds of elections globally

35 Pokémon Go – augmented reality mobile game where virtual creatures appear as if they were in the player’s real-world location

36 spinoff – a division of a company that has become independent

53 sensate – recognised by the means of senses

53 actuating – to make someone behave in a particular way

3.1 “It [dystopia] cannot imagine a better future, and it doesn’t ask anyone to bother to make one. It nurses grievances and indulges resentments; it doesn’t call for courage; it finds that cowardice suffices. Its only admonition is: Despair more.” Discuss this statement made by Jill Lepore, the well-known American historian and essayist, drawing on what you have covered in class about utopia and dystopia. (Evaluation: comment) [14 Punkte]

Klausurteil A

Shoshana Zuboff

The Surveillance Threat Is Not What Orwell Imagined

In this text, the author and scholar Shoshana Zuboff reflects on 1984, Orwell's dystopian novel from 1949, which portrays a society where the state and its leader Big Brother exercise complete control over its citizens.

George Orwell repeatedly delayed crucial medical care to complete 1984, the book still

synonymous with our worst fears of a totalitarian future – published 70 years ago this month.

Half a year after his novel’s debut, he was dead. Because he believed everything was at stake,

he forfeited everything, including a young son, a devoted sister, a wife of three months and

5 a grateful public that canonized his prescient and pressing novel. But today we are haunted

by a question: Did George Orwell die in vain?

Orwell sought to awaken British and U.S. societies to the totalitarian dangers that threatened

democracy even after the Nazi defeat. In letters before and after his novel’s completion,

Orwell urged “constant criticism,” warning that any “immunity” to totalitarianism must not

10 be taken for granted: “Totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.”

Since 1984 ’s publication, we have assumed with Orwell that the dangers of mass surveillance

and social control could only originate in the state. We were wrong. This error has left us

unprotected from an equally pernicious but profoundly different threat to freedom and

democracy.

15 For 19 years, private companies practicing an unprecedented economic logic that I call

surveillance capitalism have hijacked the Internet and its digital technologies. Invented at

Google beginning in 2000, this new economics covertly claims private human experience

as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. Some data are used to improve

services, but the rest are turned into computational products that predict your behavior.

20 These predictions are traded in a new futures market, where surveillance capitalists sell

certainty to businesses determined to know what we will do next. This logic was first

applied to finding which ads online will attract our interest, but similar practices now reside

in nearly every sector – insurance, retail, health, education, finance and more – where

personal experience is secretly captured and computed for behavioral predictions. By now it

25 is no exaggeration to say that the Internet is owned and operated by private surveillance

capital.

In the competition for certainty, surveillance capitalists learned that the most predictive data

come not just from monitoring but also from modifying and directing behavior. For example,

by 2013, Facebook had learned how to engineer subliminal cues on its pages to shape users’

30 real-world actions and feelings. Later, these methods were combined with real-time emotional

analyses, allowing marketers to cue behavior at the moment of maximum vulnerability. These

inventions were celebrated for being both effective and undetectable. Cambridge Analytica

later demonstrated that the same methods could be employed to shape political rather than

commercial behavior.

35 Augmented reality game Pokémon Go, developed at Google and released in 2016 by a

Google spinoff, took the challenge of mass behavioral modification to a new level. Business

customers from McDonalds to Starbucks paid for “footfall” to their establishments on a

“cost per visit” basis, just as online advertisers pay for “cost per click.” The game engineers

learned how to herd people through their towns and cities to destinations that contribute

40 profits, all of it without game players’ knowledge.

Democracy slept while surveillance capitalism flourished. As a result, surveillance capitalists

now wield a uniquely 21st century quality of power, as unprecedented as totalitarianism

was nearly a century ago. I call it instrumentarian power, because it works its will through

the ubiquitous architecture of digital instrumentation. Rather than an intimate Big Brother

45 that uses murder and terror to possess each soul from the inside out, these digital networks

are a Big Other: impersonal systems trained to monitor and shape our actions remotely,

unimpeded by law.

Instrumentarian power delivers our futures to surveillance capitalism’s interests, yet because

this new power does not claim our bodies through violence and fear, we undervalue its

50 effects and lower our guard. Instrumentarian power does not want to break us; it simply

wants to automate us. To this end, it exiles us from our own behavior. It does not care what

we think, feel or do, as long as we think, feel and do things in ways that are accessible to

Big Other’s billions of sensate, computational, actuating eyes and ears.

Instrumentarian power challenges democracy. Big Other knows everything, while its operations

55 remain hidden, eliminating our right to resist. This undermines human autonomy and self-

determination, without which democracy cannot survive. Instrumentarian power creates

unprecedented asymmetries of knowledge, once associated with pre-modern times. Big

Other’s knowledge is about us, but it is not used for us. Big Other knows everything about

us, while we know almost nothing about it. This imbalance of power is not illegal, because

60 we do not yet have laws to control it, but it is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Surveillance capitalists claim that their methods are inevitable consequences of digital

technologies. This is false. It’s easy to imagine the digital future without surveillance

capitalism, but impossible to imagine surveillance capitalism without digital technologies.

Seven decades later, we can honor Orwell’s death by refusing to cede the digital future.

65 Orwell despised “the instinct to bow down before the conqueror of the moment.” Courage,

he insisted, demands that we assert our moral bearings, even against forces that appear

invincible. Like Orwell, think critically and criticize. Do not take freedom for granted. Fight

for the one idea in the long human story that asserts the people’s right to rule themselves.

Orwell reckoned it was worth dying for.

Annotations:

32 Cambridge Analytica – British political consulting firm that was involved in influencing hundreds of elections globally

35 Pokémon Go – augmented reality mobile game where virtual creatures appear as if they were in the player’s real-world location

36 spinoff – a division of a company that has become independent

53 sensate – recognised by the means of senses

53 actuating – to make someone behave in a particular way

3.2 Shoshana Zuboff claims that the instrumentarian power wielded by big tech corporations “undermines human autonomy and self-determination” (ll. 55–56). Using this claim as your starting point, write a letter to the editor in which you argue against her views. Draw on the article as well as on what you have covered in class regarding challenges in a globalised world and ethical issues of technological progress. (Evaluation: re-creation of text) [14 Punkte]

Klausurteil A

Shoshana Zuboff

The Surveillance Threat Is Not What Orwell Imagined

In this text, the author and scholar Shoshana Zuboff reflects on 1984, Orwell's dystopian novel from 1949, which portrays a society where the state and its leader Big Brother exercise complete control over its citizens.

George Orwell repeatedly delayed crucial medical care to complete 1984, the book still

synonymous with our worst fears of a totalitarian future – published 70 years ago this month.

Half a year after his novel’s debut, he was dead. Because he believed everything was at stake,

he forfeited everything, including a young son, a devoted sister, a wife of three months and

5 a grateful public that canonized his prescient and pressing novel. But today we are haunted

by a question: Did George Orwell die in vain?

Orwell sought to awaken British and U.S. societies to the totalitarian dangers that threatened

democracy even after the Nazi defeat. In letters before and after his novel’s completion,

Orwell urged “constant criticism,” warning that any “immunity” to totalitarianism must not

10 be taken for granted: “Totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.”

Since 1984 ’s publication, we have assumed with Orwell that the dangers of mass surveillance

and social control could only originate in the state. We were wrong. This error has left us

unprotected from an equally pernicious but profoundly different threat to freedom and

democracy.

15 For 19 years, private companies practicing an unprecedented economic logic that I call

surveillance capitalism have hijacked the Internet and its digital technologies. Invented at

Google beginning in 2000, this new economics covertly claims private human experience

as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. Some data are used to improve

services, but the rest are turned into computational products that predict your behavior.

20 These predictions are traded in a new futures market, where surveillance capitalists sell

certainty to businesses determined to know what we will do next. This logic was first

applied to finding which ads online will attract our interest, but similar practices now reside

in nearly every sector – insurance, retail, health, education, finance and more – where

personal experience is secretly captured and computed for behavioral predictions. By now it

25 is no exaggeration to say that the Internet is owned and operated by private surveillance

capital.

In the competition for certainty, surveillance capitalists learned that the most predictive data

come not just from monitoring but also from modifying and directing behavior. For example,

by 2013, Facebook had learned how to engineer subliminal cues on its pages to shape users’

30 real-world actions and feelings. Later, these methods were combined with real-time emotional

analyses, allowing marketers to cue behavior at the moment of maximum vulnerability. These

inventions were celebrated for being both effective and undetectable. Cambridge Analytica

later demonstrated that the same methods could be employed to shape political rather than

commercial behavior.

35 Augmented reality game Pokémon Go, developed at Google and released in 2016 by a

Google spinoff, took the challenge of mass behavioral modification to a new level. Business

customers from McDonalds to Starbucks paid for “footfall” to their establishments on a

“cost per visit” basis, just as online advertisers pay for “cost per click.” The game engineers

learned how to herd people through their towns and cities to destinations that contribute

40 profits, all of it without game players’ knowledge.

Democracy slept while surveillance capitalism flourished. As a result, surveillance capitalists

now wield a uniquely 21st century quality of power, as unprecedented as totalitarianism

was nearly a century ago. I call it instrumentarian power, because it works its will through

the ubiquitous architecture of digital instrumentation. Rather than an intimate Big Brother

45 that uses murder and terror to possess each soul from the inside out, these digital networks

are a Big Other: impersonal systems trained to monitor and shape our actions remotely,

unimpeded by law.

Instrumentarian power delivers our futures to surveillance capitalism’s interests, yet because

this new power does not claim our bodies through violence and fear, we undervalue its

50 effects and lower our guard. Instrumentarian power does not want to break us; it simply

wants to automate us. To this end, it exiles us from our own behavior. It does not care what

we think, feel or do, as long as we think, feel and do things in ways that are accessible to

Big Other’s billions of sensate, computational, actuating eyes and ears.

Instrumentarian power challenges democracy. Big Other knows everything, while its operations

55 remain hidden, eliminating our right to resist. This undermines human autonomy and self-

determination, without which democracy cannot survive. Instrumentarian power creates

unprecedented asymmetries of knowledge, once associated with pre-modern times. Big

Other’s knowledge is about us, but it is not used for us. Big Other knows everything about

us, while we know almost nothing about it. This imbalance of power is not illegal, because

60 we do not yet have laws to control it, but it is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Surveillance capitalists claim that their methods are inevitable consequences of digital

technologies. This is false. It’s easy to imagine the digital future without surveillance

capitalism, but impossible to imagine surveillance capitalism without digital technologies.

Seven decades later, we can honor Orwell’s death by refusing to cede the digital future.

65 Orwell despised “the instinct to bow down before the conqueror of the moment.” Courage,

he insisted, demands that we assert our moral bearings, even against forces that appear

invincible. Like Orwell, think critically and criticize. Do not take freedom for granted. Fight

for the one idea in the long human story that asserts the people’s right to rule themselves.

Orwell reckoned it was worth dying for.

Annotations:

32 Cambridge Analytica – British political consulting firm that was involved in influencing hundreds of elections globally

35 Pokémon Go – augmented reality mobile game where virtual creatures appear as if they were in the player’s real-world location

36 spinoff – a division of a company that has become independent

53 sensate – recognised by the means of senses

53 actuating – to make someone behave in a particular way

Klausurteil B: Sprachmittlung isoliert

4. An American friend is preparing a presentation for a social science course on how administrations use algorithms. To include a perspective from abroad, she/he has asked you for help. Write her/him an email in which you outline what Valentin Dornis's article states about how German administrations currently use algorithms and which proposals the author makes for improving the situation.

(Mediation) [18 Punkte]

Klausurteil B

Valentin Dornis

Deutschland braucht einen Ethik-Kodex für Algorithmen

Österreich führt einen Algorithmus ein, der Arbeitslose in drei Kategorien sortieren soll: mit guten, mittleren und schlechten Chancen auf einen neuen Job. Kritiker fürchten Diskriminierung von Frauen, Alten und Ausländern. In Deutschland sind solche Programme in der Verwaltung bisher die Ausnahme, den Sicherheitsapparat mal ausgenommen. Bevor sich das ändert, ist es dringend nötig, endlich Richtlinien zur Algorithmenethik einzuführen, die bundesweit gelten. Nur so kann die Verwaltung in Zukunft die Chancen automatisierter Prozesse nutzen, ohne Ängste bei den Bürgern zu schüren oder gar zu bestätigen.

Ein moderner Staat muss Algorithmen nutzen, auch im direkten Kontakt mit den Bürgern. Sie helfen, Abläufe zu optimieren und Geld zu sparen – im Idealfall, um es anderswo sinnvoller einsetzen zu können. Weil es dabei um Steuergelder geht, ist diese Effizienz im Sinne jedes Bürgers, jedes Steuerzahlers. Ineffizient ist dagegen der aktuelle Zustand in Deutschland: Eine umständliche Verwaltung, in der viele Dinge auf Länderebene unterschiedlich geregelt sind, in der Daten vorhanden, aber nicht verknüpft sind, in der eine Behörde in Bayern andere Software benutzt als die in Berlin.

Trotzdem gibt es großen Widerstand, wenn über automatisierte Prozesse im Staat nachgedacht wird. Die größte Sorge ist, dass der Mensch seine Bedeutung als Individuum verliert, sobald seine Daten durch einen Algorithmus wandern. Dass das Leistungsprinzip zum ultimativen Grundsatz wird: Wer schlechte Kennzahlen in der Akte stehen hat, der wird nicht gefördert und weiß im Zweifel nicht einmal, warum. Diese Sorge ist berechtigt, aber kein Grund, auf automatisierte Systeme zu verzichten. Nötig sind klare Regeln, wenn staatliche Institutionen Algorithmen einsetzen. Effizienz darf nicht der alleinige Maßstab werden, der die Sozialpolitik definiert. Ein Solidarsystem soll auch Menschen Chancen ermöglichen, deren Aussichten nicht erfolgreich scheinen.

Die gute Nachricht: Algorithmen werden von Menschen gemacht. Es gibt Politiker, die sie in Auftrag geben, Informatiker, die sie programmieren, und Beamte, die sie anwenden. Nicht der Algorithmus ist schuld, wenn Bürokratie ungerecht ist, sondern die Menschen, die diese Bürokratie gestalten und verwalten. Wenn es für diese Menschen keine ethischen Leitlinien gibt, wie sie mit neuen technischen Möglichkeiten umgehen sollen und wo die Grenzen liegen, ist das ein Problem. Erst dann wird der Algorithmus zum Risiko für den einzelnen Bürger.

Die Digitalstrategie der aktuellen Bundesregierung und ihrer Vorgänger orientiert sich leider eher an historischer behördlicher Ineffizienz. Die Regierung digitalisiert auf lauter kleinen Inseln im großen Datenmeer vor sich hin. Es gibt unter anderem einen Digitalrat, ein Digitalkabinett, eine Digital-Staatsministerin, eine koordinierende Digitalabteilung im Kanzleramt, eine Abteilung Digitalisierung und Arbeitswelt samt zuständigem Staatssekretär im Arbeitsministerium und eine Datenethik-Kommission.

Letztere ist seit etwa sieben Wochen im Einsatz und soll nun immerhin ethische Leitlinien „vorschlagen und Handlungsempfehlungen geben“. Das ist grundsätzlich gut, aber nicht ehrgeizig genug. Es fehlt das Versprechen, dass die Bundesregierung daraus noch vor der nächsten Wahl bundesweit einheitliche verpflichtende Vorschriften entwickelt. […]

Wie könnten solche Regeln aussehen? Erstens: Kontrolle. Ein Gremium mit Experten, Betroffenen und Anwendern muss von Beginn an mitarbeiten und zum Beispiel sicherstellen, dass durch einen Algorithmus keine bestehenden Vorurteile reproduziert werden. Zweitens: Transparenz. Staatliche Software darf nicht unter Geheimhaltung entwickelt und angewendet werden. Sie muss Open Source sein, das heißt, jeder muss sie testen und Schwachstellen finden können. Drittens: Expertise. Mitarbeiter in der Verwaltung müssen lernen, mit der Software umzugehen, Grundmechanismen algorithmischer Prozesse zu verstehen und die Aussagekraft von Wahrscheinlichkeiten einzuschätzen. Viertens: flexible Anpassung. Bewertet ein Programm etwa die Chancen von Arbeitslosen auf einen Job, muss es laufend überprüft und angepasst werden. Wird jemand wegen der Software benachteiligt, muss es einen Ausgleich geben.

Algorithmen sind nicht böse, es kommt auf ihre Gestaltung und Anwendung an. Diese sollte in Deutschland klar geregelt sein, bevor die Programme auf die Bürger losgelassen werden.

Anmerkungen:

Die Sprachrichtigkeit betreffende Fehler im Originaltext wurden berichtigt.

36 – 37: soll … Handlungsempfehlungen geben – die Datenethik-Kommission hat ihren Bericht im Oktober 2019 abgegeben